Crank Protocol

sr_backtest

Read-onlyIdempotent

Backtest a strategy with an S/R config block (read-only simulation).

Runs the existing backtest engine with strategy_type (default "support_resistance": bounce-long off detected support, exit on a support break or resistance-fail; on spot a SHORT signal is exit-to-flat) and merges the validated sr_config into params["sr"]. asset is a token mint; timeframe one of 1m/5m/15m/1h/4h/1d; start_date/end_date ISO-8601. Returns the standard performance metrics plus persisted SUPPORT_RESISTANCE signals carrying zone metadata. Read-only simulation -- no fee, no on-chain action, not financial advice (DYOR).

Workflow: SIMULATE step -- validate an S/R setup on history before risking capital; feeds get_risk_assessment -> sr_configure_strategy. See get_trading_workflow.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "asset": "<asset>",
      "timeframe": "<timeframe>",
      "start_date": "<start_date>",
      "end_date": "<end_date>"
    },
    "name": "sr_backtest"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`asset`	Yes
`params`	No
`fee_bps`	No
`end_date`	Yes
`caller_id`	No
`sr_config`	No
`timeframe`	Yes
`start_date`	Yes
`slippage_bps`	No
`strategy_type`	No	support_resistance
`slippage_model`	No	fixed
`wallet_address`	No
`initial_capital`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJul 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context: 'no fee, no on-chain action', and describes return values including standard performance metrics and SUPPORT_RESISTANCE signals. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured: a concise first sentence states the purpose, followed by parameter details, return info, and workflow. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded. No unnecessary repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Considering the tool's complexity (13 parameters, 4 required), rich annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description is comprehensive. It explains the workflow, differentiates from siblings, and describes return values. It meets the needs for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains required parameters: 'asset is a token mint', 'timeframe one of 1m/5m/15m/1h/4h/1d', and 'start_date/end_date ISO-8601'. It also mentions merging sr_config into params['sr']. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema for key parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Backtest a strategy with an S/R config block (read-only simulation)', specifying the verb (backtest), resource (strategy with S/R config), and scope. It distinguishes from sibling 'backtest_strategy' by focusing on support/resistance configuration.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the workflow as a 'SIMULATE step' to validate an S/R setup before risking capital, and mentions it feeds into other tools. It states 'Read-only simulation' and 'not financial advice'. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases when not to use this tool over other backtesting tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Crank Protocol tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?